3 ms·

I was about to use it as a OS-independent alternative to Skype (I'm on Linux). And I wanted to use this, also instead of facebook chat and the likes. The momen

I was about to use it as a OS-independent alternative to Skype (I'm on Linux). And I wanted to use this, also instead of facebook chat and the likes. The moment they removed the contacts feature it was dead for me. Although, to be honest, it never really worked (sometimes no audio and stuff like that). The idea, that I have to first email the chat URL and then I can make a conversation is like writing a letter first before doing a call. Fundamentally wrong conversation setup.

intherdfield 10y ago
The WebRTC functionality isn't being removed, just the built in video chat/sharing that was powered by Telefonica. You can still use a site like https://talky.io/ https://talky.io/ with Firefox (and I expect there are other sites) if you're looking for Skype or Facebook alternatives. I don't know if there are WebRTC sites that have sane address books, but I would hope so. I've heard talky.io works well, but haven't used it.
- nachtigall 10y ago
  Session setup is a real showstopper if there are no builtin contacts. If I have to paste the talky.io URL first with <some-other-chat-program>, why not use <some-other-chat-program> in the first place? I know I can email (where I have an adress book) the URL, but why use another communications channel for call setup.
  - fzzzy 10y ago
    Because <another communications channel> is the channel that every user already has set up with the user they want to chat with. It varies for every person, so why not let them use what is most convenient for them? Nothing's stopping anybody from writing a walled garden site that provides a nice ui for messaging contacts you stored in an address book on top of that.
chme 10y ago
Yes, I would rather see some more traditional FOSS video/audio/chat/screensharing solution. With an account, contact lists, account (not device) based E2E encryption* , easy to deploy server software and something that can be used from a browser (without any plugins) and native chat applications with an open standard. * Where messages are de/encrypted readable for every device/endpoint of an account not just for the one with the active session.
- watwatwatwat 10y ago
  Would you pay for it? If yes build a list of competent developers, ask them if they would build it and lunch a funding campaign. Give all the money to them and donate yourself. Building software is hard, building what you asked for is even harder.
  - chme 10y ago
    I'd rather do it the other way around. Find people with money to spend and let them pay me (and other developers) for implementing it.
    - mikekchar 10y ago
      Just implement it. It's not hard. All the libraries you need already exist and are relatively high quality. I have done it myself (non-free system) getting on to 10 years ago. It took me less than a year by myself and I even wrote my own SIP implementation. These days you could certainly do it faster. There are a few problems, though. One is that NAT traversal will still probably mean that it will be unreliable unless you also set up a service to carry data. The other main problem is that nobody will pay you for it. There are literally hundreds of failed startups who realised how easy it is to build these things. They couldn't find a way to make money. It should be easy because if people are forced to pay for a service to carry data in order to make it reliable, you should be able to make money. Right? The problem is that people won't pay for reliability because they think that the software is buggy (see comments above re: "I tried Hello, but it was buggy. No audio, etc." Classic). Skype famously solved this problem by being evil and routing it's traffic through un-NATed users. Google solves this problem by having more bandwidth than god (and hangouts still sucks half the time). But if you ignore the "there's no way to make money at this" problem, it's a pretty fun project to write.

intherdfield 10y ago

The WebRTC functionality isn't being removed, just the built in video chat/sharing that was powered by Telefonica. You can still use a site like https://talky.io/ https://talky.io/ with Firefox (and I expect there are other sites) if you're looking for Skype or Facebook alternatives. I don't know if there are WebRTC sites that have sane address books, but I would hope so. I've heard talky.io works well, but haven't used it.

nachtigall 10y ago
Session setup is a real showstopper if there are no builtin contacts. If I have to paste the talky.io URL first with <some-other-chat-program>, why not use <some-other-chat-program> in the first place? I know I can email (where I have an adress book) the URL, but why use another communications channel for call setup.
- fzzzy 10y ago
  Because <another communications channel> is the channel that every user already has set up with the user they want to chat with. It varies for every person, so why not let them use what is most convenient for them? Nothing's stopping anybody from writing a walled garden site that provides a nice ui for messaging contacts you stored in an address book on top of that.

chme 10y ago

Yes, I would rather see some more traditional FOSS video/audio/chat/screensharing solution. With an account, contact lists, account (not device) based E2E encryption* , easy to deploy server software and something that can be used from a browser (without any plugins) and native chat applications with an open standard. * Where messages are de/encrypted readable for every device/endpoint of an account not just for the one with the active session.

watwatwatwat 10y ago
Would you pay for it? If yes build a list of competent developers, ask them if they would build it and lunch a funding campaign. Give all the money to them and donate yourself. Building software is hard, building what you asked for is even harder.
- chme 10y ago
  I'd rather do it the other way around. Find people with money to spend and let them pay me (and other developers) for implementing it.
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    Just implement it. It's not hard. All the libraries you need already exist and are relatively high quality. I have done it myself (non-free system) getting on to 10 years ago. It took me less than a year by myself and I even wrote my own SIP implementation. These days you could certainly do it faster. There are a few problems, though. One is that NAT traversal will still probably mean that it will be unreliable unless you also set up a service to carry data. The other main problem is that nobody will pay you for it. There are literally hundreds of failed startups who realised how easy it is to build these things. They couldn't find a way to make money. It should be easy because if people are forced to pay for a service to carry data in order to make it reliable, you should be able to make money. Right? The problem is that people won't pay for reliability because they think that the software is buggy (see comments above re: "I tried Hello, but it was buggy. No audio, etc." Classic). Skype famously solved this problem by being evil and routing it's traffic through un-NATed users. Google solves this problem by having more bandwidth than god (and hangouts still sucks half the time). But if you ignore the "there's no way to make money at this" problem, it's a pretty fun project to write.